Defanging the Predators: Oxfam’s Woes

First came the abuses. Then, the allegations. Then,
the tardy response, with lacings of apologia. The UK
Charity Commission could not have been harsher about the
conduct of Oxfam, which is a charity fallen most foul. The
inquiry into its past misdeeds, triggered by a February 2018
report by the Sunday Times, resembled the more
baroque features of a child abuse inquiry; indeed, in many
instances, there are striking parallels: the betrayals, the
scarring, the manipulations. Charities are meant to be
entities of care; in this case, they became entities of
exploitation, indifference and dissembling.

A shudder at
the time was registered through the UK Parliament. Local
women in disaster zones had come to be viewed, according to Conservative MP Pauline
Latham, as “trinkets and you can pay for them, give them a
bit of aid, and that’s OK”. Former Development
Secretary Priti Patel at suggested a charity scene populated by
predatory paedophiles.

The foreword from the Chair, Baroness Tina
Stowell, reminds us of the fiduciary calling of charity,
one ever susceptible to potential abuse. Such trustees are
“custodians of what charity means in the eyes of the
public. That understanding is bigger than any single,
charitable purpose.” But the canvass of sordid horror
immediately shakes the reader: the exposure in February last
year that, in 2010, Oxfam staff “had sex with prostitutes,
some of whom may have been ‘underage’”; the permitting
of Oxfam GB’s country director in Haiti, Roland van
Hauwermeiren, to resign with only a modicum of disgrace; and
further allegations of sexual misconduct involving Oxfam
staff in the Philippines.

The picture is sordid and
dysfunctional. Even the language of “prostitutes” is
condescending, ignoring the obvious point that underage sex,
even if procured under circumstances of payment, was rape
with remuneration. Broadly speaking, the inquiry found that
Haiti was far from unique, hardly a singular blot in broadly
noble mission. The rot had found its way from disaster zones
into the charity shops of the organisation itself in the UK.
The vulnerable had become the finest subjects of
exploitation.

More broadly, the findings suggest an empire
gone to seed, degenerating in administration and
accountability. Allegations of child abuse by staff in
Haiti went unreported. Inadequate investigations were
conducted into the alleged sexual misconduct visited upon 13
victims by an unspecified “boss” of the charity. The
impacts of such abuse and misconduct were not treated with
sufficient gravity.

Oxfam’s own responses have been
uneven. An internal investigation in 2011 led to
the sackings of four individuals but gave the higher-ups a
chance to fall on their swords. Even in charities, status
counts. In the words of Oxfam’s chair of
trustees, Caroline Thompson, “the 2011 investigation and
reporting of what happened in Haiti was flawed; more should
have been done to establish whether minors were involved.”

In February 2018, Oxfam also established its own
Independent Commission on Sexual Misconduct, Accountability
and Culture Change (IC). The findings were not that different to
those of the Charities Commission, though it did have a
slightly different flavour. In the words of the report’s summary, “The
IC found ineffective reporting mechanisms, safeguarding
process failures, and accountability gaps. Beyond sexual
misconduct, the IC found issues related to work
environments”.

Its recommendations seem like
procedural bromide, encouraged by a self-help enthusiasm
commonly found in airport bookshops. “Model
transparency” is encouraged, as is making matters
personal, supporting survivors to recover, and, “Work
together within the sector to realise systematic change.”
These suggestions resemble the puffery so typical of middle
management and the advertising arm of agencies: Together we
can change!

Within the charity, non-government sector is
also a reluctance to drain the coffers in the name of
regulation. (Often confused here is the difference with
regulation and enforcement, the latter somewhat lagging in
aspiration.) We must be careful, claim Vincent Charles Keating, Angela
Crack and Erla Thrandardottir, to get too enthusiastic about
matters of oversight. “Not only are there already a large
number of oversight and regulatory mechanisms […] in
existence, but the addition of more will shift resources
away from the work that the government the public value NGOs
for to meet new bureaucratic requirements.” The statutory
inquiry suggests that existing regulatory mechanisms have
done little to defang the predators or restrain the cowboys.

Oxfam has been put on notice, as have other charities who
mistake piety for performance. The charity has received an official warning under the
Charities Act 2011 for failing to take appropriate actions
between 2015-2017 to “match the relevant level of risk
faced by the charity, given its global reach and the nature
of the activities” and ensure adequate assurance
safeguarding against risks including adequate case practice
and reporting.

The warning also covered failings in not
handling staff misconduct in Haiti in 2011 “leading to a
failure to apply disciplinary processes, policies and
procedures consistently as between three particular members
of staff”; a failure in properly managing risks on receipt
in July 2011 of “concerns that two girls under 14 years of
age might be at risk of sexual exploitation” (i.e. not
reporting the them to the relevant Haitian
authorities).

Oxfam has weathered storms before, notably
those seeking to challenge its charitable status. In 1991,
the Inquirer’s report of the Charity Commissioners for
England and Wales found against Oxfam on claims of political
abuse. Its modern mission had been compromised, taking it
beyond the realms of mere charitable work. While the report
was, to a large extent, precipitated by the agitations of
the International Freedom Foundation, a free-market outfit,
alleging the abuse of Oxfam of its charitable status, the
dangers of such activities remain. The charitable mission
can turn sour, and the donors are turning away.

Scoop Citizen Members and ScoopPro Organisations are the lifeblood of Scoop.

20 years of independent publishing is a milestone, but your support is essential to keep Scoop thriving. We are building on our offering with new In-depth Engaged Journalism platform - thedig.nz.
Find out more and join us:

ALSO:

The Prime Minister has briefed Cabinet colleagues that the government will bring forward an ambitious new legislative programme for MPs’ approval, and that the current parliamentary session will be brought to an end. More>>

ALSO:

Traditionally, communiques capture the consensus reached at the meeting. In this case, the division on display between Australia and the Pacific meant the only commitment is to commission yet another report into what action needs to be taken. More>>